Fossil Fuels

I enjoyed Mike Tidwell's article on phasing out carbon fuels in favor of renewable energy sources ("Forecast calls for pain,", Feb. 6). Taxing carbon is the best way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Having lived and traveled in Germany, I know that the U.S. is way behind in green living and sustainability. In Germany renewable energy is booming. Many people commute via mass transit, trains offer the option to go anywhere in Europe, and bicycling is very popular. Organic stores are everywhere, and everything is recycled so people don't consume as much.

What good news! The morning after more than 400,000 activists turned out to protest climate change, major philanthropies pledged to divest from fossil fuel ("Philanthropies, including Rockefellers, and investors pledge $50 billion fossil fuel divestment," Sept. 22), demonstrating how the tables are turning in this false controversy over the environment vs. the economy and jobs. The Rockefeller Fund and many others have recognized there is no question that the economy will fail miserably if we permit climate change to continue unabated.

What good news! The morning after more than 400,000 activists turned out to protest climate change, major philanthropies pledged to divest from fossil fuel ("Philanthropies, including Rockefellers, and investors pledge $50 billion fossil fuel divestment," Sept. 22), demonstrating how the tables are turning in this false controversy over the environment vs. the economy and jobs. The Rockefeller Fund and many others have recognized there is no question that the economy will fail miserably if we permit climate change to continue unabated.

The Ecumenical Leaders Group represents seven denominations of Christian churches in Maryland. We are heartsick about the impact climate change is having on our neighbors close to home and around the world and mindful that the survival and flourishing of all peoples depend on our ability to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources ( "Too much carbon, too little time," Sept. 11). Heat-trapping pollution like carbon dioxide and methane, released into the air by humans at unprecedented levels in the last hundred years, has damaged our climate and made our oceans more acidic.

The photo in the Baltimore Sun on May 1 of the white gannet covered in brown oil from the spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a casualty of an invasion, one caused by our relentless desire for cheap energy and willful ignorance of the consequences. A man who earns his living in Louisiana described being able to smell the oil as it approached the coastline, the destroyer of everything he knows and loves. The invader represents an addict who up to now has shown no interest in weaning off of oil. Oil "independence" still means using oil. And the hurricane season starts in less than a month.

It makes no sense to invest billions of dollars into such a dead-end technology as oil pipelines which will be obsolete and of ever-declining value over the next dozen years as we burn up yet more and more of our declining fossil reserves ( "Keystone XL is one more hole in a sinking ship," Feb. 5). Instead, we should be investing in long-distance electric transmission lines to move our unlimited, renewable, 100 percent American electricity resources from where they are plentiful to where they are needed.

Your Aug. 4 editorial ( "Cap and dividend" ) does not take into consideration the phenomenon of peak oil. I'm in favor of measures that help regular people - and government - make the transition to an energy future that can actually sustain us without poisoning the atmosphere. And I agree with your assertion that rising energy prices will be a "near certainty," but my reason is different. Peak oil refers to a peak in production, which might already be happening, and predicts higher energy prices as production falls.

YOU SHOULDN'T grill a steak. But if you must, don't use lighter fluid to ignite the charcoal. If the drought isn't burning up your lawn fast enough, you can mow. But don't refuel your mower by day because temperatures will cook the fumes. Night is also the preferred time to gas up your car, but don't travel alone. Either car-pool or ride the bus, which you can do free in some areas during Maryland's latest air-pollution alert.State health, environmental and transportation officials have plenty of advice and directives to dispense as Maryland copes with persistent Code Red air pollution conditions.

Coal-burning utility companies and coal producers, disturbed by public acceptance of the idea that burning fossil fuels will change the climate, are deciding whether to go national this fall with an ad campaign they tried in three markets earlier this year.The campaign produced nearly 2,000 requests to a toll-free telephone line for more information, said Gale Klappa, a vice president of Southern Co., a coal-using utility based in Atlanta.The goal of the campaign, according to one planning document, is to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)

WASHINGTON - Former Vice President Al Gore said yesterday that Americans must abandon fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts. "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. "The future of human civilization is at stake." Gore called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal.

Your Aug. 4 editorial ( "Cap and dividend" ) does not take into consideration the phenomenon of peak oil. I'm in favor of measures that help regular people - and government - make the transition to an energy future that can actually sustain us without poisoning the atmosphere. And I agree with your assertion that rising energy prices will be a "near certainty," but my reason is different. Peak oil refers to a peak in production, which might already be happening, and predicts higher energy prices as production falls.

The late, great New York senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, famously said, "You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. " That sentiment, however wise, seems sadly quaint in an era when many Americans strongly prefer a "reality" that conforms to their opinion, not to objective facts. A fresh case in point is Marco Rubio, the boyish Florida senator who is considered a serious contender for the U.S. presidency in 2016. Sunday, on ABC's "This Week," Mr. Rubio said, "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," adding that he also did "not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.

Letter writer Taylor Smith-Hams rightly points out the need for a price on carbon to fight climate change: By making fossil fuels more expensive than renewable energy, the market phases them out ( "Carbon fee is best climate change option," May 11). But where would that tax money go? Eight Nobel economists and the Harvard economist who co-wrote the latest IPCC report support a revenue-neutral carbon tax, paid by fossil fuels directly to consumers, not the government. Consumers will have that tax money to protect them during the transition period.

It makes no sense to invest billions of dollars into such a dead-end technology as oil pipelines which will be obsolete and of ever-declining value over the next dozen years as we burn up yet more and more of our declining fossil reserves ( "Keystone XL is one more hole in a sinking ship," Feb. 5). Instead, we should be investing in long-distance electric transmission lines to move our unlimited, renewable, 100 percent American electricity resources from where they are plentiful to where they are needed.

Climate change is a looming problem that will affect developed and developing countries. Developed nations have historically - and primarily - contributed to this problem, despite the fact that developing nations will be disproportionately affected in coming years. Social and environmental justice issues are inherently linked to climate change. Thus, it is critical to produce behavior change in developed countries and help developing countries adapt to climate change. Part of tackling climate change is understanding why humans harm the environment.

In response to Gerald C. Rose's letter ("Liberals should not tell people what to do," May 8), I can only say, "Well, someone has to. " We have a serious energy problem in this nation, and the continued use of fossil fuels is harmful and futile. I am happy that Mr. Rose purchased more energy efficient bulbs, but he reveals all when he states that his reasoning is because it saves him money. Is this the only reason? I would like to think that he cares more for reducing our use of fossil fuels.

It doesn't take a world-class bargain-hunter to recognize that the price of anything, from groceries to electronics, is impossible to assess without considering hidden costs. Like that big-screen TV? Better ask about the added cost of cables and digital sound. A home listed below market price can seem great - until repairs to the cracked foundation, faulty wiring and leaky plumbing are factored in. Yet for decades, the U.S. has embraced an energy policy blithely ignorant of the true price tag of driving our highways and providing electricity to our homes.

WASHINGTON - Setting up what is likely to be a lengthy fight with the House, the Senate overwhelmingly approved an energy measure last night designed to reduce the nation's reliance on fossil fuels, while still providing tax breaks for traditional energy producers. The bill, approved by an 88-11 margin, includes tax credits for renewable energy and conservation and loan guarantees for a new Alaskan natural gas pipeline. But it leaves out a major element of legislation proposed by President Bush: a plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Dan Ervin's commentary on lifting restrictions on U.S. companies supplying nuclear power equipment abroad is completely misleading ("A nuclear opportunity," May 6). Nuclear energy is not, as Mr. Ervin says, pollutant free or carbon free. Government regulations allow nuclear power plants to deliberately' and routinely emit hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every day. Radiation cannot be seen, felt or tasted, so I'm wondering if this is why Mr. Ervin feels he can credibly say that nuclear power is pollution free.

Thanks for your article on climate change and rising sea levels ("Survey shows Americans wary of sea level rising," March 29.) Global warming is driving major change in sea levels. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading authority on climate science, projected an annual sea level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above projections, according to Scientific American magazine.